I’m amazed that people pay attention to Gardner when his only visible asset is a magnificent sense of the obvious. A mechanic doesn’t howl at the moon like Gardner when he can’t loosen a nut with a screwdriver he grabs a wrench. IQ tests and SATs have proven to be useful tools when used properly but they only provide a small portion of the total picture. We shouldn’t discard useful tools because they are not perfect but we should be ready to change when better ones become available.Unfortunately, our academic system only rewards a limited set of skills and discards many far more talented students who don’t fit into the system. But as long as the most import skill is to be able to sit passively, absorb the material presented uncritically, and do your homework, we are never going to be able to take full advantage of our human skills. It’s likely that cavemen oops cave people did it a lot better without any formal education.

steve, at 9:15 am EDT on March 25, 2008

A Weak Theory

Most psychometricians who seriously study intelligence do not put much stock in Gardner’s theory. His propositions are not supported by data and the theory is not falsifiable. For a good overview of many of the weaknesses of Multiple Intelligence Theory check out this link:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3261311.html

Brent, at 11:35 am EDT on March 25, 2008

Gardner’s theory captured the public imagination, but intelligence theorists and researchers have quietly ignored it and gone on with their studies. He has had little impact on the science involved.

I once spoke to Gardner after one of his talks. I asked him whether educators should focus on increasing low intelligences in a profile or build upon strengths. He had no answer. I asked him how his theory accounted for the individuals with strengths across all of the intelligences (as many “gifted” children have). Again, he had no answer. It boils down to a theory that points in no clear direction with respect to educational practice.

If you factor analyze any set of multiple measures, you can force the variance onto a single main factor (minimum residual or principle component analysis) as the construct of “g” does, or you can try to produce as many separate factors as possible, as the construct of “multiple intelligences” does. But the underlying data set remains the same. Given that activities such as math, music or science all draw on many distinct skills and can provide a variety of career options, measuring multiple intelligences seems unhelpful for guidance.

Gardner’s theory did great things for his career though. The unfairness of his attacks on existing concepts of intelligence encouraged a kind of anti-intellectualism and hurt the field of serious intelligence research, in my opinion. Being the originator of yet another education fad, wasting dollars that should have been spent differently, is a dubious distinction and not one to be celebrated.

Perry, at 12:20 pm EDT on March 25, 2008

Multiple Intelligencies

The controversy about multiple intelligences is more political than psychological. One poster noted that “...psychometricians...do not put much stock in Gardner’s theory” and provided a link to the Hoover Institute, a politically conservative institution focused on public policy, not psychological research. The author of that scathing critique, one Daniel T. Willingham, claimed that Gardner’s theory had little impact on education, displaying spectacular ignorance of how educators have embraced Gardner’s theory and implemented differentiated learning strategies aimed at using multiple intelligencies. While Gardner’s theory is not conceptually very different from a hierarchical theory of intelligence, there are major political and practical differences between emphasizing a singular intelligence (with the implicit assumption that a single test can measure it) versus emphasizing diversity of abilities (with the implicit assumption that no single test is a final arbiter of opportunity). At root, this controversy is more political than psychometric and is about control of the measures that grant opportunities to people.

DD, Vice Provost at CSULB, at 5:00 pm EDT on March 25, 2008

In my own experience,the notion of multiple intelligences has enabled me to increase my IQ. When I was 5 years old, my kindergarten school teacher believed there was something wrong with me. I was sent to a psychologist who gave me an IQ test and my score (70) suggested that I was mentally retarded. It was more of being stressed and nervous I learned later rather than an actual score. Through training in the martial arts (5-8 years old and later in Jr high and high school) when I lived in Okinawa and various sports (Pop Warner football, high school football, competitive swimming, track and field, Little League baseball, etc...) — my IQ in high school was at 135 (though I barely got by with a C- average in school). I’m now 56 and back in school finishing my Ph.D. in clinical and neuropsychology. I was wondering if anyone else experienced similar results from people they know or in themselves?

As far as genes are concerned regarding one’s IQ, there’s also the aspect of epigenetics in which environmental factors can turn a particular gene on or off. My current studies into stress and epigenetics has shown that traumatic stress that leads to PTSD may be passed through the maternal link to the mother’s offspring and even to her decendents. This may even have an effect on one’s IQ (though further studies need to be done). Howard Gardner’s nature versus nurture may be proven through these studies.

Bob, at 4:40 pm EDT on March 26, 2008

Visionaries are controversial

Howard Gardner discovered that people are intelligent in different ways. This was a radical idea in its time and obviously, still is from some of the previous comments made on this thread. It follows that people who make their money creating intelligence tests don’t want to take different intelligences into account because their tests may be more difficult to create. Perhaps, their personal intelligences which draw them to this endeavour make them less open to change. In my opinion, the only way to obtain a valid IQ is through testing geared to all intelligences. It is surprising to me that as science has begun to take Quantum Theory with its theories on the basic oneness of matter to the masses, many of us cannot accept the common sense of MI. As educators, we need to realize that our role is changing from mere provider to facilitator of knowledge. Our purpose is to assist our students’ learning and encourage their curiosity from primary to higher education. In order to accomplish our purpose, we must take these factors into account when planning classes and use MI as a tool. MI allows us to make classes more learner focussed. We need to make ourselves aware of our personal intelligences because unconsciously we tend to focus on them in our lessons. By being aware, we can ensure to include all MIs in our classes. Lesson planning is more challenging and takes longer when including activities to reach every student, but it is infinitely more satisfying to see students being captivated instead of bored by a class. Remember that Gardner does not say that students are exclusively one intelligence or another, but unique blends of different amounts of each intelligence. This means that the more varied the activities we can include, the more all of our students will get from the class. Despite Gardner’s thoughts about MI being less than effective in language learning, I have found it to be not only effective, but also necessary in order to gain and keep students’ interest. Needless to say, I’m a fan of Howard Gardner and am glad that he had the courage to propose his ideas and still has the courage to defend them.Thanks, Howard!

Roberta King, UAEH, at 11:15 am EDT on April 9, 2008